Publishing in Educational Research Journals: Are Graduate Students Participating?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional collaboration in academia is valued because it is believed to encourage the generation and synthesis of ideas, to enhance workplace environments, and to comprise a key element in mentoring practices. Collaboration in writing is often of two types: formal co-authorship or informal commentary on colleagues' work. Formal co-authorship is a topic that usually draws more attention for its problems and potential controversies than for its putative benefits. In our study, we examined professional academic co-authorship. Focusing on the field of education, we identified four research sub-fields (general education, educational psychology, language studies, and literacy studies) and analysed academic peer-reviewed journals from each of these sub-fields to establish how much collaboration exists in published articles. We then examined the extent to which graduate students are co-authors in these publications and what role this collaboration takes. Implications for collaboration with and between graduate students are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.088 | 0.105 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".